Short answer. Yes. Section 92 makes it a crime for a government officer or employee tasked with prosecuting drug cases to cause the case to fail or be dismissed through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay, or deliberately. It carries imprisonment of twelve years and one day to twenty years.
What the law says
Any government officer or employee tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this act, who, through patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or deliberately causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal of the said drug cases, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
RA 9165, Section 92 — Delay And Bungling In Prosecution. Read the full provision →
What Section 92 punishes
The covered person is any government officer or employee tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases, which is broader than a prosecutor alone and can reach others whose role is to carry the case forward. The prohibited conduct takes four described forms — patent laxity, inexcusable neglect, unreasonable delay or acting deliberately — and the result element is that this conduct causes the unsuccessful prosecution and/or dismissal of the said drug cases. So the offence is not merely losing a case; it is bringing about the loss through one of those culpable routes.
The threshold is high
The chosen words are demanding. "Patent" laxity and "inexcusable" neglect signal that ordinary mistakes, honest misjudgements, or dismissals that simply follow weak evidence are not what the section targets. It reaches conduct that plainly falls below the duty owed — gross carelessness, unjustified delay, or deliberate sabotage of the case. A dismissal on its own proves nothing under this section; the manner in which it was brought about is the whole point. That distinction protects a prosecutor who acted in good faith while catching one who let the case fail through fault.
It does not displace other liability
The section states that the penalty is imposed without prejudice to prosecution under the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code. So this liability sits alongside, not instead of, other offences the same conduct may constitute. A person who, for example, accepted a bribe to let a drug case collapse is not shielded by Section 92 from the separate crimes that bribery involves. The section adds a specific offence for sabotaging drug prosecutions; it does not absorb or excuse the ordinary criminal liability that the underlying misconduct independently carries.
What has to be shown, and next steps
Establishing an offence under Section 92 means proving both the culpable conduct and that it caused the failure of the case — a demanding evidentiary task, since an unfavourable result can have many innocent explanations. It is not something to infer from a dismissal alone. Anyone considering such a complaint, or a prosecutor facing one, should have the specific acts and the causal link between them and the outcome reviewed with counsel, because the section turns on the quality of the conduct rather than on the result of the case taken by itself.